Allowed

Rahul.G v. the Registration Authority

Kerala HC8 Nov 2023WP(C)/30170/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Registration Authority to renew the petitioner's Chevrolet Forester for five years without demanding additional fees by treating it as an Indian vehicle, noting prior certificates listed the manufacturer as General Motors India Private Limited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to renew the vehicle registration without treating it as imported and without demanding additional fee.

Rahul.G Vs the Registration Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 30170 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

RAHUL G.,
AGED 29 YEARS,S/O. GIRI C. K.,
CHAMAKKALA HOUSE, KONGORPILLY P. O.,
KOONANMAVU, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683518.

¶7

BY ADVS.
 SRI. K. N. ABHILASH
 SRI. SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY,
SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PERIYAR NAGAR,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682101.

¶10

2THE SECRETARY,
MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, TRANS TOWERS,
VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014.

¶11

BY ADV.
 SRI. JOBY JOSEPH - GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 30170 OF 2023

¶14

¶15

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶16

W.P.(C) No.30170 of 2023

¶17

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2023

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction from this Court to renew the registration of private car vehicle bearing registration No. KL-05 P 1187 for a further period of five years in accordance with the provisions of Section 41 read with Rule 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The petitioner vehicle is a Chevrolet Forester. The manufacturing month and year of the said vehicle is April, 2003. The said vehicle was bought initially by the Managing Director, Cochin Cements on 03.07.2003 and the registration certificate was issued by the Registering Authority, Kottayam which was valid for a period of fifteen years. The registration certificate of the vehicle was valid up to 31.03.2018. The registration of the said vehicle for a period of five years was renewed in 2018. On 20.08.2020, the petitioner bought the said vehicle from its previous owner. The registration of the vehicle with the result of renewal/registration certificate was valid up to March, 2023. The renewed certificate has been placed on record of this writ petition as Exhibit P-2, which would show that the manufacturer name of the

¶20

WP(C) NO. 30170 OF 2023

¶21

¶22

vehicle is General Motors India Private Limited. The said vehicle is not treated to be a imported vehicle at the time of initial registration and subsequent renewal in the year 2018. The petitioner having bought the vehicle on 20.08.2020 from the previous owner applies for further renewal for the said vehicle in accordance with the law for a period of five years vide Exhibit P-5 application. The petitioner also remitted the requisite fee as prescribed under the Rules. However, the 1^st respondent had refused the certificate of registration making an endorsement on Exhibit P-5 application that the vehicle is an imported vehicle and hence there is deficiency in the registration fees and demanded Rs.40,000/- treating the vehicle to be imported vehicle.

¶23

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not treated the vehicle as imported one when it was initially registered in the year 2003 and thereafter at the time of first renewal in 2018, it was treated as a vehicle manufactured by the General Motors India Private Limited, which is evident from Exhibit P-2. Now, the respondents have changed their stand at the time of second renewal and requiring Rs. 40,000/- additional fee for renewal of the second time registration on the ground that the vehicle is imported one.

¶24

WP(C) NO. 30170 OF 2023

¶25

¶26

The Learned Government Pleader is not in a position to refute Exhibit P-2 renewed registration certificate which was issued in the year 2018 and the said renewed certificate issued in the year 2018 in respect of the vehicle in question would show that the makers name is shown as General Motors India Private Limited. The respondents cannot be allowed to change their stand at this state of second time of renewal and therefore, I find substance in the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. In view thereof, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to renew the registration of the petitioner’s vehicle Chevrolet Forester bearing registration No. KL-05 P 1187 treating it to be a vehicle manufactured in India and not an imported vehicle subject to the satisfaction of other requirements and conditions for renewal. Necessary decision should be taken within a period of one month from today.

¶27

Sd/DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶28

Svn

¶29

WP(C) NO. 30170 OF 2023

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30170/2023

¶32

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶33

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
DATED 03.07.2003 ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING
AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM IN FAVOUR OF THE FIRST
OWNER; THE MANAGING DIRECTOR COCHIN CEMENTS

¶34

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER PERTAINING TO CHEVROLET FORESTER BEARING NO. KL-5-P1187

¶35

EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE E-FEE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT FOR
RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION

¶36

EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27.06.2023 FOR
REMITTING GREEN TAX

¶37

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.06.2023 FOR RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION SUBMITTED UNDER FORM 25 OF THE CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES RULES

¶38

1ST RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES

¶39

ANNEXURE R1(a)A TRUE COPY OF THE GSR 714 (E) DATED
04.10.2021

Rahul.G v. the Registration Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul.G v. the Registration Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asokan Vs the District Collector, Kollam

Renuka Vs Arun Thomas Varghese

Subhadra Vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

Mithlaj. P., Vs the Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise ( Appeals )

Nazeer Jamal, Vs the State of Kerala

M/S. Premier Auto Sales & Service, Vs the Additional Commissioner